SaggyBalls

'oddly'? Just wait till we hear him sing it. He's a folk singer donchaknow.

Thanks, Sari. Can you keep these boys on track?

Were you holding on to a microphone while typing that? My apologies for potentially derailing the thread, but have to point out that this probably isn't the best place to debate user licenses, illegal downloading, and piracy or the conditions that have created them. If we really want to start another thread about that (it's 2010...i think the stalemate debate is getting a bit old) then I'm sure somebody'll chime in. Now: let's get creative!

...Sorry to read that you've been having computer problems, Velvet. The King Edward bridge seems to be a great place to drop a computer from. If you want it to smash on something hard and rocky, I don't know what to suggest.

John, Chapter 8, Verse 12, which reads: "Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life." Pretty appropriate for a nightscope. Who blew the whistle on this? Were there Internal memos talking about the verses? It feels treasonous to even leak it before giving the army an opportunity to reverse the castings on those scopes. So much hassle, so much of a talking point, and a reason for holy warriors to blow themselves up on a subway in NYC.

Exactly. "Whatever dude"

If it's true then the solution would either be no-impact or reversible, which would be ideal. I think that the earth may be able to handle short term reversals, but trying to strongarm mother earth into chilling out could be dangerous. Anybody hear of any geo-engineering 'solutions' that are purported to be low-to-no impact?

Weird? Really? You're such a nice guy, Dave. If the ruling would designate that every political donation over a certain amount (gross, for sections of companies and other accounting loopholes) be matched by a fundraising donation to benefit American Families (food banks, hospitals, etc) then not only would that be acceptable, but would be weird. Well...acceptable as i write this, but on deeper contemplation it could be almost as sinister.

Home users are a lot different than commercial users. see below: Sure there's potential to bloat, but the issue of PC viruses is almost exclusively a Windows issue. Of course it occurs infrequently on Mac and other OS platforms, but it's a problem that is mostly one-sided and the problem shouldn't have to be on the end user. 'something free at the cost of others'? Quit being such a drama queen. The issue isn't about me being a cheapskate or having contempt for modern economics, it's about viruses being a nuisance and hassle for home computer users. Illegal music, TV, and film downloads? I think they're part of the system now and it's only a matter of time before everything works together properly, with media being the business card of any successful and aspiring musician/artist, with TV, Film, and Software not fitting the model I think of first. My condolences to film, tv, and computer programmers. I am a proponent of hard copy media, but it is such a grey issue that the system hasn't adapted enough to even begin to address effectively that the issue being brought up in an antivirus software for free thread seems really petty. 'free comes at a price' I assert that the COSTS of this so-called 'freedom' are the issue, not price. Look at the response as being an unnecessary distinction or not, but I see it as a very important one. The price of nearly every consumer good or service doesn't reflect the costs involved to produce, maintain, or dispose of said good or service. ...like Local Television and Radio broadcasting I think it's far more fitting to say 'cheaper comes at a price', or 'convenience comes at a price'. Already, my comment that providing quality antivirus software should be the responsibility of someone other than the end user has cost me, and you time for a bloated post. But of course, that's the price I've paid. Maybe the torture could be having to answer to people on some messageboard for something that is a realistically justified position...or having to read these long, rambling, meandering threads that distract the conversation remorselessly.

I'm prayin' for ya brother.

I hope they were at least tasty, V.

Well, rS, on the surface, to many Canadians, it DOES look like a good thing, as the melanin (?) and lead paint scares of recent years have turned the safety of consumer goods into a new fear of the unknown. There were parts of the bill that without careful scrutiny would have gone unnoticed, and those passages undermined parlimentary process and could easily harmonize any country/company's laws with ours - effectively circumventing due process and undermining Canada's (and our citizens') autonomy. Anyhow, there are loads of resources online about C-6. I find it truly unfortunate that we now have to be vigilant to make sure that our own Gov't doesn't pass legislation that is not at all in our interests.

replace 'the' with 'all' and you'll probably understand where I'm coming from a bit better, Esau. nevertheless, those are 2 great links. thanks!

It would be far simpler safer to regulate raw Milk than to drive it underground.

So that the 'gutted' C-6 sneaks in as another bill next year.

Graffiti taggers should be punished based on artistic merit and skills. If they're awful they need to practice...even more with fewer digits. The virus writer should not be punished, but the antivirus software should be free for home users.

So trivial...

(NaturalNews) In conjunction with NaturalNews, the non-profit Consumer Wellness Center (www.ConsumerWellness.org) has publicly offered a $10,000 reward for any person, company or institution who can provide trusted, scientific evidence proving that any of the FDA-approved H1N1 vaccines being offered to Americans right now are both safe and effective. Vaccine promoters keep citing their "science" in claiming that H1N1 vaccines are safe and effective. NaturalNews and the CWC ask one simple question: Where is this science? The $10,000 reward will be issued to anyone who can produce scientific evidence meeting the following criteria: • A scientific paper, published in a peer-reviewed medical journal, describing the results of a minimum of two Phase III trials structured as randomized, placebo-controlled scientific clinical trials of an FDA-approved H1N1 vaccine currently in distribution, carried out on a minimum of 1,000 people (for statistical significance) for a duration of at least 90 days. The inclusion criteria for both clinical trials must be properly randomized so that the participants are representative of the entire U.S. population and not merely a desired sub-group selected to skew the research outcome. Inclusion criteria must be provided to NaturalNews for verification. • At the same time, the vaccine must be scientifically demonstrated to be effective at reducing H1N1 swine flu infections. Scientifically speaking, it must be demonstrated to reduce the death rate from H1N1 infections by a minimum of 50 percent (relative numbers, not absolute, since so few die from H1N1 in the first place). In other words, if 100,000 people get infected with H1N1 and 100 might normally die, the study must show that fewer than 50 vaccinated people die. This would equate to a 50 percent reduction in mortality from swine flu. If the vaccine is less than 50 percent effective, then it doesn't really offer much benefit for such a mild flu with extremely low fatality rates. • Because vaccine promoters describe the vaccine as "safe enough for children and expectant mothers" and because vaccine promoters insist that there are absolutely no risks of long-term side effects, the study must demonstrate that the vaccine causes no statistically significant increase in side effects of any kind for a minimum of one year following the vaccine injection. You might think this is impossible to produce since the vaccine hasn't even existed for one year and couldn't have possibly been tested to see whether it produces neurological side effects in the one-year timeframe. That is exactly my point. • Finally, due to widespread corruption and dishonesty in clinical trials that are funded by drug companies, these clinical trials must not be funded in whole or in part with drug company money. Funding for the studies must come from truly independent sources such as a government institution or a university with no financial ties to the vaccine manufacturer. This is not a satire story or a parody. This $10,000 reward for scientific proof of the H1N1 vaccine safety and effectiveness is being offered in all seriousness. The offer is valid through March 31, 2010. If proof of the H1N1 vaccine safety and effectiveness is produced in accordance with the reasonable requirements published here, NaturalNews will publish a public apology regarding our condemnation of H1N1 vaccines and issue a $10,000 check to the winner of the reward within five business days. (Per IRS regulations, we may require proper income reporting details from the reward recipient if they reside in the U.S. or are a U.S. citizen). If you, the NaturalNews readers, encounter any blogger, journalist, debater or newsgroup poster who invokes the word "science" in the context of supporting H1N1 vaccines, simply point them to this $10,000 reward offer and challenge them to claim the reward for themselves. All they have to do is search Google Scholar (or their local university library) for just one published scientific article proving the safety and effectiveness of any H1N1 swine flu vaccine through two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies according to the criteria described here. It's simple, really. If such scientific proof exists, it should require less than an hour to find it. With all these doctors, journalists and FDA decision makers talking about the amazing "science" behind the H1N1 vaccines, you would think that there must be at least one of them who would like to earn $10,000 in one hour while proving the safety and efficacy of these vaccines. Is there one such person who would claim this $10,000?

*ugh* commercials. How come sponsorships, product placements, liners, and special presentations can't make as much ad revenue as those goddamn commercials? You could be right, Bouche - but there's far more than just local news on these channels, and if a company can cut production costs and not eat into their other ratings, then local news is a leverage for the 'local tv matters' TV Tax struggle.

My big issue with the prorogue is that Bill C-6 was set to go through Parliament to be voted on after ammendments/changes from the Senate. Now that bill's cooked, the incredibly perverted passages will most likely be found somewhere else in a future bill that may quite easily go under the radar. We almost beat it this time and now it's set to reappear somewhere else. So not only is it a huge waste of time and energy, but now there is growing concern that this absolute lack of respect for democracy by our own elected officials will not only continue but will become far more underhanded and sneaky in the future. Maybe it's time to scrap it all and start over.

I figured that instead of saying 'please keep them out' I'd suggest that they be minimized. Those are more than a welcome sight. That's a solid opinion. I look forward to a time where people don't feel they need to worry about a 'carbon footprint'. While environmental stewardship is in part everybody's responsibility, this increasing emphasis on doing the 'right thing' could get out of hand. Hopefully we won't get too carried away in the process.

Keeping in mind that I'm only talking about a nagging argument...mostly from people that have a beef with CBC without watching it. Perhaps CBC could take cable access by storm, and proliferate in other ways? It's tough to do with funding cuts already... ...but if the commercial guys can't do it anymore then the only hope is either the home broadcasters or through socialism, is it not?

One argument I've heard AGAINST CBC is that it's more centralized and that it doesn't support local fundraising efforts for charities and have the same level of 'down home' as local commercial radio and Television... ...Could this be a new call to arms for CBC and their meager lobbyists? Could the people find a way to rally behind both CBC and the 'local TV Matters' campaign??

Big Ditches and Walls! West from Near East?